header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME FOLLOWING METAL-ON-METAL RESURFACING OF THE HIP AND TOTAL HIP REPLACEMENT



Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome and satisfaction scores have become increasingly important in evaluating successful surgery. There is continued enthusiasm for metal-on-metal resurfacing of the hip, particularly as an alternative to total hip replacement (THR) in young, active patients with osteoarthritis. However, although mid-term survivorship data is promising, it remains unclear whether patient-reported outcomes following resurfacing match those following THR.

Patients and Methods: This case-matched control study compared patient-reported outcome and satisfaction data following hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. Thirty-three consecutive patients selected for hip resurfacing were compared with 99 patients undergoing cemented total hip replacement (THR), matched for age, sex and pathology. Participants completed a Short-Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) questionnaire pre-operatively and 6 months post operatively, with an additional patient satisfaction questionnaire.

Results: There was no difference in length of hospital stay. Both groups reported improved outcome scores, with mean OHS improvements of 19.5 (95% CI: 17.0–22.1), and 20.6 (95% CI: 18.6–22.5) following resurfacing and THR respectively. There were similar improvements in SF-12 PCS of 14.2 (95% CI: 9.5 to 14.2) and 15.2 (95% CI: 13.2 to 18.2) for the resurfacing and THR groups respectively. The improvement in outcome scores did not differ between the two groups on multivariate regression analysis (P=0.509 for OHS, P=0.629 for SF-12 PCS). Both groups reported high levels of satisfaction, which tended to be better in patients undergoing hip resurfacing (97.0% vs 92.9%), with resurfacing patients reporting better pain relief (P=0.022) and better heavy lifting (P=0.038) at 6 months.

Discussion: This study shows that the short-term patient-centred outcome scores for hip resurfacing are at least as good as for conventional hip replacement, with slightly higher levels of satisfaction.

Correspondence should be addressed to BHS c/o BOA, at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3PE, England.